"Obama said that there would be more
limits on targeted killings, a step in the right direction," said
Kenneth Roth, executive director at Human Rights Watch. "But a mere
promise that the US will work within established guidelines that remain
secret provides little confidence that the U.S. is complying with
international law."

Starting in the US with The War on the First Amendment. Last week, The War on the First Amendment's big revelations were that the Justice Dept had secretly seized the phone records of a 167-year-old news institution, the Associated Press. This week's revelation is that the Justice Dept targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen. Clark S. Judge (US News and World Reports) observed yesterday, "It has been a bad few weeks for the First Amendment. The sinister commonality to the Internal Revenue Service and AP scandals and the James Rosen affair is that each appears to have been (strike "appears ": each was) an attempt to suppress a core American right." Michael Isikoff (NBC News) reported:

Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.

James Rosen's State Dept press badge was also used to retrace every moment he made in the State Dept when visiting. Fox News reporter Whitney Ksiazek and Associated Press reporter Matthew Lee raised this issue yesterday at the State Dept spokesperson Patrick Ventrell's press briefing.

Whitney Ksiazek: And then on a separate topic, was former Secretary Clinton consulted with the tracking of my colleague James Rosen’s building – State Department building swipe? And were any other employees interviewed in connection with the North Korea reporting that James Rosen did?

Patrick Ventrell: My understanding, this is a law enforcement matter. I really refer you to the Department of Justice for all details on that. In terms of our cooperation with the Department of Justice or the FBI on matters, that would be handled through Diplomatic Security channels and law enforcement channels. That’s how that’s done.

Matthew Lee: So you – in principle, DS doesn’t have a problem turning over badge records to --

Patrick Ventrell: Again, I’m not aware of the specific cooperation on this case, but --

Matthew Lee: Well, they got the records of his entry and egress, so you guys obviously handed – I mean, they didn’t make them up, I hope.

Patrick Ventrell: Well, I can’t --Matthew Lee: So you guys obviously gave them to them.

Patrick Ventrell: I can’t comment on any details of this particular case, but when we have --Matthew Lee: Well, I’m not talking about this particular case. Just in general, I mean, are you, like, running around, giving out the details of our comings and goings from this building?

Patrick Ventrell: Issues of cooperation on law enforcement matters between Diplomatic Security and the FBI are handled in law enforcement channels. I don’t have anything further on it.

Matthew Lee: Wait. Well, so you mean you’re not – do you just give the information out if people ask for it? Or do they need a court order or something?

Patrick Ventrell: Matt, I’m not sure of the legal circumstances on that kind of information sharing.Matthew Lee: Well, can you check?

Patrick Ventrell: Sure.

Matthew Lee: It would be --Patrick Ventrell: I’m happy to check on --

Matthew Lee: If DOJ comes to you and says we want the entry and exit records from people, persons X, Y, and Z, do you just give them to them? Or do they have to --

Patrick Ventrell: My understanding is there’s a legal process that’s followed, but I’d have to check with the lawyers.

Matthew Lee: Well, can you find out what the – what it is --

Patrick Ventrell: I’d be happy to check.

Matthew Lee: -- from your end, whether they need a subpoena or whether they need something like that.

Andrea Mitchell: I also wanted to ask you about the leak investigations. He said in his speech yesterday that he's trying to get answers from the Justice Dept. Why does he need answers from the Justice Dept about something that has been going on for so long? Isn't he aware more broadly of the way these leaks are pursued and the way journalists have been swept up in it?

White House Deputy National Security Advisor Antony Blinken: Well Andrea, I obviously can't comment on a specific investigation but I can say this and it goes towards what the president said yesterday --

Gayle King: The President also said yesterday, Bob, that he wants to protect journalists from the government's overreach and now comes news this morning that Attorney General Eric HOlder signed off on allowing an investigation into some reporters' e-mails. Is that an awkward position?Bob Schieffer: Well I think what's interesting here is the President has said he wants Attorney General Holder to be the one who does this review about protecting reporters' rights and all of that when it is the Justice Dept, of course, that has caused all this controversy. I mean, the president's saying he wants to review this and he wants to protect reporters' sources. I think a lot of journalistic organizations and the people who run them are going to view this with skepticism. They'll go back to the old Ronald Reagan "trust, but verify" because the last time they introduced the shield law, uh, it was the President and this administration that watered it down and it, uh -- and it just laid there. Nothing ever happened. They're going to now reintroduce the same legislation. But I think a lot of people are just waiting to see how serious the President is about this, because there's no question in the minds of many journalistic organizations -- and there's no question in my mind -- this was an outrageous overreach when they subpoenaed all these records at the Associated Press and some of these other instances as well.

Gene Policinski (San Jose Mercury News) reminds, "Freedom to report the news requires the freedom to gather it." Law and Disorder Radio, an hour long program. usually airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week. It did have a new weekly program this week but WBAI listeners didn't hear it. WBAI is in pledge mode and instead had Heidi Boghosian, and Michael S. Smith for two hours live asking for donations to WBAI (if you'd like to donate, click here) and presenting a different program than this week's taped program. From the live pledge drive:Michael S. Smith: And that raid on Associated Press where they got the home, cell phone and business phone records of 100 AP reporters -- Heidi Boghosian: Right.Without a warrant. In clear violation of the Fourth Amendment --Heidi Boghosian: Right.Michael Smith: and the First Amendment. And just cleaned up the AP records. Unprecedented.Heidi Boghosian: It's unprecedented, Michael.Michael Smith: It's one thing after another.Heidi Boghosian: It's illegal too. They're supposed to give notice when they do that but what's clearly happening is the press in this country is under attack. We no longer have really a so-called free press. If you look at the case of Bradley Manning, Jeremy Hammond -- who's facing 42 years in prison for uploading documents to WikiLeaks and of course Julian Assange. Now the AP spying, the warrantless spying that has effected countless legal organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, The People's Law Center in Chicago --Michael Smith: You know, you know why it's effected so many.Heidi Boghosian: Why?Michael Smith: Because the people effected by the raid on AP files are not just the AP reporters but they're their sources.Heidi Boghosian: Exactly.Michael Smith: Who's gonna --Heidi Boghosian: Who's gonna turn over information?Michael Smith: Who's gonna tell something to an AP reporter knowing that their phone conversation is going to go to the FBI?Heidi Boghosian: Exactly. Exactly. So we have what we have called "the chilling effect on Free Speech in this country" -- which again is why you need to support WBAI because we're not afraid to bring you the truth in reporting.

Transparency can begin with letting the public know exactly what the guidelines for investigating the press are—and how the Justice Department interprets them. As the FBI’s operational guidelines make clear, the rules requiring the press to be notified when their phone records are obtained only apply to subpoenas—not other secretive tools, such as National Security Letters, which can be issued without court approval. But the rules governing NSL demands for media records remain secret.The Justice Department should also release any internal memos interpreting the rules governing press investigations. We know, for example, that there exists an informal 2009 opinion in which Justice Department lawyers analyzed how the rules would apply to sweeping demands—such as so-called “community of interest” requests—that can vacuum up a reporter’s records (among many others) even if the reporter is not specifically named as a target. Only brief excerpts of that opinion have been disclosed, thanks to a 2010 Inspector General report, and there is no way of knowing how many others remain secret.Finally, we need an independent review—conducted by the Office of the Inspector General, not Attorney General Holder—to determine just how much surveillance of reporters has already occurred. It seems clear that the Justice Department does not think the current rules always require the press to be informed when they’ve been spied on: DOJ lawyers convinced a judge that the government never had to notify Rosen they’d read his e-mails. And because demands for electronic records can be quite broad, it would be all too easy for the government to end up with sensitive information about journalistic investigations even when no reporter was explicitly targeted.When Congress and the public know what the rules really are, and how they have been applied in practice, we can begin a serious conversation about what reforms are needed to protect press freedom. Asking Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder, on the other hand, is unlikely to protect much of anything—except, perhaps, Eric Holder.

Back to yesterday's State Dept press briefing. Later in the briefing, Asia Today and India Globe's Raghubir Goyal had a question.

Raghubir Goyal: New subject?

Patrick Ventrell: Yeah.

Raghubir Goyal: Question, Patrick, on the freedom of the press, globally.

Patrick Ventrell: You ask very broad questions, Goyal. (Laughter.)

Raghubir Goyal: Just simple question on the freedom of the press.

Patrick Ventrell: We support the freedom of the press. (Laughter.)

Raghubir Goyal: And the question is --

Matthew Lee: Do you?

Patrick Ventrell: We do.

Matthew Lee: Do you really?

Patrick Ventrell: We do, Matt.Matthew Lee: Are you speaking for the entire Administration, or just this building?Patrick Ventrell: We support the freedom of the press. We support it globally. We support it here at home.Matthew Lee: That’s the position of this building. Is it the position of the entire Administration?Patrick Ventrell: It is.Raghubir Goyal: Just to mark the international freedom of the press, and recently Freedom House, they placed another 84 names of the journalists who were killed in 25 countries, but – these are only official from the Freedom House – but hundreds of journalists are beaten, jailed, or killed in many countries – more than 25 countries. My question is here: When Secretary meets with world leaders here or abroad, does he talk ever other than human rights but on the freedom of the press in these countries?

Patrick Ventrell: Indeed, he constantly and consistently raises these issues with foreign leaders around the world and here when he meets with them. And I think you heard over the two weeks during our freedom of the press activities, many of the cases that we called out, the high priority that we place on this, and our deep concern for the well-being of journalists who face violence and repression for the work that they do around the world. So that’s something we’re deeply committed to.

Raghubir Goyal: -- especially in China or Saudi Arabia and --

Patrick Ventrell: It includes all those countries.

Raghubir Goyal: Thank you, sir.Matthew Lee: Is it just violence and repression? Or is it also government intimidation or – that you’re opposed to?Patrick Ventrell: That as well. All of that.Matthew Lee: So in other words, the State Department opposes the Administration – the rest of the Justice Department’s investigations into --Patrick Ventrell: Well, again, I think you’re trying to conflate two issues here.Matthew Lee: No, no. I’m asking about freedom of the press. That was what the question was.Patrick Ventrell: And we do – and we support freedom of the press. I think you’ve heard the President – I think you’ve heard the White House talk about this extensively.Matthew Lee: Right. So you – and you think that violence and repression against journalism – journalists is wrong, as you do harassment or intimidation by government agencies.Patrick Ventrell: All of the above.Matthew Lee: So you do not regard what the Justice Department has been doing as harassment or intimidation.Patrick Ventrell: Again, I can’t comment on a specific law enforcement investigation.Matthew Lee: I’m not asking about a specific case. In general, would the State Department oppose or support harassment, intimidation, or prosecution of journalists for publishing information?Patrick Ventrell: We oppose that, in terms of them – is this around the world --Matthew Lee: Okay. So the State Department then opposes the Justice Department’s prosecution.Patrick Ventrell: Again, you’re trying to get me to conflate two issues.

No, not really but way to send a mixed signal to the world Patrick Ventrell. Let's hope Secretary of State John Kerry does raise the issues of press freedom with Nouri al-Maliki's government in Iraq. As Helena Williams (Independent) noted earlier this month, "According to the CPJ, Iraq continues to have the world's worst record on impunity, with more than 90 unsolved murders over the past decade and no sign that the authorities are working to solve any of them."

Article 36 of the Iraqi Constitution guarantees "Freedom of expression, through all mean," "Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication" and "Freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration. This shall be regulated by law." Every week, Nouri al-Maliki, chief thug and prime minister in Iraq, demonstrates that he has trouble comprehending if he bothers to read. Fridays in Iraq. Since December 21st, that's meant ongoing protests.

We see two terrorist attacks during Obama’s tenure that could be considered "large scale."
One is the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 soldiers and
civilians dead and more than two dozen others wounded. Nidal Hasan, a
psychiatrist and major in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, is the only
suspect and is now awaiting a military trial.
The other incident is the bombing at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, that killed three and injured more than 260.
Officials are still determining the extent of the role played by
Islamic extremism in the accused bombers’ motivations. (We aren’t
including the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, Libya, because it
didn’t take place on the U.S. mainland.)

"CAN YOU BELIEVE THOSE JOKERS?" HE ASKED US. "THEY SAID 'HALF-TRUE.' NOW SOMETHING IS EITHER TRUE OR IT IS FALSE. THERE'S NO 'HALF-TRUE.' EVEN I KNOW THAT!"

Today, US President Barack Obama blathered on in that self-justifying way that War Criminals all seem to naturally shift into. Like many a president on the ropes, he elected to give his speech at a military base, Fort McNair, where he hoped (wrongly) he would be better able to manage the crowd. The main topic was The Drone War.

Yesterday, as part of the roll out for today's speech, the Justice Dept's admission of 4 Americans killed by drones in The Drone War suddenly made the news. As The Progressive's Matthew Rothschild observes in a radio commentary ("Tony Sopranco in the Oval Office") observes today, "And it claims with very little credibility that it didn't mean to kill three of the four which I'm sure provides great comfort and solace to their families."

Admitting to four known murders was seen by some, such as the weak CCR, as good news -- as though Barack was the friend you were launching an intervention on and not the man who has, as The Bureau of Investigative Journalism notes, ordered 316 drone strikes in Pakistan alone, resulting in the deaths of at least 197 children. In a speech of nearly 6,500 words (I count 6,494), he never noted what Alice K. Ross (Bureau of Investigative Journalism) reported earlier this month, that a Pakistan Peshawar High Court had ruled that these Drone Strikes were "criminal offences," a "war crime," a "blatant violation of basic human rights" and that the judge called for the United Nations Security Council to step in.

Though he spent a great deal of time making glib remarks about other countries, he never noted that the US had popularized The Drone War and made it an 'acceptable choice' for other countries, or that the US was providing drones with kill capacity to other countries. He never acknowledged, for example, Nathalie Guibert (Le Monde) report, from earlier this week, that France will be purchasing drones from the US -- two Reaper drones which will have to be 'European-ized' due to the fact that the drones are illegal as is in Europe. Germany has already spent $400 million to purchase several drones from Northrop Grunman Corporation.

Dan Murphy (Christian Science Monitor) offers this take of today's speech, "But if the speech is remembered for anything years hence it will be as the moment when the president declared 'The war on terrorism is dead! long live the open-ended game of whack-a-mole against diffuse networks!' Yes, that's right. Obama has rhetorically put to bed the frankly silly GWOT terminology -- while obliquely calling for years of low-grade conflict."

Barack's nearly 6500 words included:

From our use of drones to the detention of terrorist suspects, the decisions we are making will define the type of nation -- and world -- that we leave to our children. So America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison’s warning that "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do – what we must do – is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom. And that begins with understanding the threat we face.

"We" did not make a decision on The Drone War, no vote from the American people was sought, no judicial review of The Drone War took place and, until last month's Senate hearing, there has been no little Congressional acknowledgment, let alone review. And on that US Senate hearing last month? Alice K. Ross (The Bureau of Investigative Journalism) observed that "the government [White House] refused to send a representative to yesterday's hearing."

At the heart of the objection to what Barack has done is the US legal concept that a democracy does not allow any one person to be judge, jury and executioner. But that's what Barack has done and been as he has overseen The Drone War.

He had the audacity to invoke the phrase "rule of law" twice in his speech early on -- once to take a swipe at his predecessor, once to praise himself. Rule of law does not allow one person to be judge, jury and executioner. Rule of law has not been followed in The Drone War. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clauses have been ignored and broken.

He has ignored rule of law and the notion of democratic consent. He has completely confused his role and the powers granted the office by the US Constitution as evidenced by his ridiculous assertions such as, "For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives." You are commander in chief of the US military. You are not allowed to start a war, only Congress is.

Yes, Barack's administration made very clear in statements to the press that that had no respect for The War Powers Act but what Barack's actions with regards to The Drone War have made clear is that he has no understanding of what the Constitution allows a president to do or what it does not allow a president to do. Either he has no understanding or just doesn't respect the Constitution. He is not the commander in chief of the United States. That title applies to his position over the military only. As a person who lectured on the Constitution to college students, he should be aware of that fact.

In addition to not being commander in chief of the American people, his role as commander in chief is not supreme. The US is not a military junta. We have civilian control of the military which includes oversight of all actions built into the Constitution -- and that includes oversight of anyone in the Oval Office invoking the title commander in chief.

In addition, as Julie Pace and Lara Jakes (AP) point out, the CIA controls the Yemen 'front' in The Drone War. The Central Intelligence Agency -- like the Justice Dept -- is not part of the military. Invoking 'commander in chief' with regards to his interaction and orders to the CIA is clearly violating "the chain of command" and militarizing a civilian agency, as well as disregarding the Constitution. Before an e-mail comes in -- and some foolish people will -- the CIA is not needed by the military. The military has intelligence units. If you're unaware of them, for starters, you're unaware of how they were used to spy on American protesters during Vietnam. But, for example, the US Army alone has MI, the Military Intelligence Corps, its own branch of the Army.

PEOPLE ARE SAYING SHE NEEDS TO BE FIRED FROM HER JOB FOR HER REFUSAL TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS. ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESS ABOUT HER JOB AND HOW SHE DOES IT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF HER JOB.

SHOULD SHE LOSE HER JOB, PEOPLE ARE ALREADY THINKING UP WHAT A POST-GOVERNMENT LIFE COULD BE LIKE FOR LOIS LERNER AND IT'S RICH WITH POSSIBILITIES SUCH AS:

* PLAY THE LEAD IN A THEATER ADAPTION OF THE PIANO.

* APPLY TO FILL IN FOR VANNA WHITE ON WHEEL OF FORTUNE WHEN VANNA NEEDS A VACATION.

* BECOME THE OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON FOR "SNITCHES GET STITCHES."

* TRAVEL THROUGHOUT AMERICA, FROM SCHOOL TO SCHOOL, DEMONSTRATING TO YOUNG CHILDREN HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY PLAY THE QUIET GAME.

Our democracy was created by the people and for the people. When
government power is used to target Americans for exercising their
Constitutional rights, there is nothing we as representatives should
find more important than to take it seriously, get to the bottom of it
and eradicate the behavior. Since 2010, there appears to be a targeting
of people based on their beliefs. These people, particularly those who
use "Tea Party" in their name, were mocked by the liberal media, mocked
by late night television and referred to by this administration
regularly with disdain. Even hear in the halls of Congress, people
would talk about who the Tea Partiers were, who was Tea Party
supported? When, in fact, there is no Tea Party. As the evidence has
shown, there are hundreds and hundreds of organizations -- as
independent as any single American -- who simply wanted to live up to
the Constitution, to have their freedom and to have it protected by our
country. So last week when we received troubling complaints by groups
across the country who received what appeared to be inappropriate and
unnecessary questions -- in many cases after more than a year, in some
cases two years of inaction by the IRS -- we went to the Inspector
General -- who is here with us today. In March of last year, upon the
request of our staff and later in a letter from Mr. Jordan, the
Subcommittee Chairman, and myself, the IG launched a formal
investigation. We knew then that something seemed to be wrong. We knew
then that there was smoke. We knew then that in fact something just
didn't seem to be right.

That's Committee Chair Darrell Issa speaking at today's House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee hearing. The Ranking Member is Elijah
Cummings who observed, "This is more important than one election. The
revelations that have come forward so far provides us with a moment
pregnant with transformation -- not transformation for a moment but for
generations to come and generations yet unborn." The issue was the
targeting of various groups by the IRS. The
witnesses appearing before the Committee were former IRS Commissioner
Douglas Shulman, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal S. Wolin, Lois
Lerner who is both Director of Exempt Organizations of the IRS and a
Marcel Marceau protege, and Treasury Dept Inspector General J. Russell
George.

Chair Darrell Issa: Mr. George, before the Ways and Means Committee
hearing, you told Representative Danny Davis the following, "Our audit,
sir, began with the request of Congressional staff in -- I want to give
you the correct date, sir -- I do not have it here. March 1, 2012 is
when there was an initial contact with the Government Oversight and
Reform Committee and are audit began or roughly" -- and then you go on
with May or March, etc., etc. So essentially, this began in your mind
when you were made aware of it in March by members of my Committee --
staff members of my Committee. Correct?J. Russell George: Uh, yes.Chair Darrell Issa: So, oddly enough, we have with us, and put it up
on the board, from Holly Paz, a document just released to us from -- I
guess in preparation for yesterday's interview -- that says "Forward
TIGTA document request, the following are issues that could indicate a
case to be considered, a potential Tea Party case, and sent for
secondary screening. One Tea Party Patriots of 9-12 Project [. . .] 4,
Statements in the case file that are critical of how the country is
being run." Now that's May 20, 2013. To your knowledge -- and that is
the result of an internal investigation done by the IRS, not your
investigation. Oh, I'm sorry. That's July 23rd, I'm looking at e-mails
which are, unfortunately, this year, but that's July 23, 2012. It's
your understanding that the IRS concluded they had wrong doing from
their own internal investigation by July 2012?J. Russell George: I have no information on that but, uh, let me
consult with my counsel. [. . .] I have been informed that they
conducted an internal review, sir, that was completed before that
period. Chair Darrell Issa: Okay. So it's your testimony that, in fact,
independent of your activity, Mr. Shulman's reports conducted and
concluded wrong doing and could have, in fact, reported that up the
chain and taken appropriate action independent of your activities.J. Russell George: That is certainly an option, sir.Chair Darrell Issa: So, Mr. Shulman, before I go back to Mr. George,
it was your watch, your people did an internal review. How is it you
did not know that things were rotten in your shop in time to not only
make sure it stopped, and stayed stopped, but in fact the Treasury, your
boss sitting next to you, was aware of it? Douglas Shulman: Uhm, you know, I, uh, said that I learned about
this sometime in the spring -- and by "this," I mean I learned the fact
that there was a list and the fact that "Tea Party" was on it --Chair Darrell Issa: Okay, so you knew at that time you knew that you
had mistreated Americans within your organization and you saw no need
to report it up the chain? Is that your testimony?Douglas Shulman: My testimony is that I -- at that point I'd had a
preliminary verbal report. I'd been told at that same point that the
activity was being stopped and I was told that the IG was looking at --Chair Darrell Issa: Okay, stop there. I don't really care about the
IG right now. The IG probably prompted the internal report. The IG has
been the reason, in fact, that we didn't hear about this until long
after the election, till months or actually a year had gone by. I'm
asking you a question. It was your job to make sure people weren't
abused. It was your job to stop abuse but also to report it. Americans
had been injured by the activity -- wrongful activity -- of your
organization. You say that you got it "vocal." I don't care that the
IRS doesn't keep paperwork. I know that when I have to pay my taxes, I
don't do it based on what I say I made or what I say my deductions are,
that I need paper. However, you knew. You did not report up or did you
report up to anyone else within your chain?Douglas Shulman: I had some of the facts, not all of the facts. I
had no idea of the scope and severity. I didn't know the full list, I
didn't know who was on the list. I --Chair Darrell Issa: Okay, well I'm not going to belabor that because
"I don't know" has been your answer previously. I'm going to move back
to the IG. Mr. George, September 24, 2012, you mentioned your report
would be ready in September. These are exchanges we're putting up [on
the screen] here. They're back and forth, they're not all personally
with you. So September 24, 2012, the answer to our request about this
IG report was, "Field work for this audit is still ongoing." Meaning we
still don't get an answer. December 18, 2012, "Any update on this?"
[Reply] "Sorry for the delayed response, I was studying for a final."
Okay. That's when it was pushed off to March. Just wanted to check on
the progress of this -- this is February 20, 2013 -- are you at a point
where you can schedule a briefing?" From your organization, "We are
leaving no stone unturned" -- this is February 22, 2013 -- "we won't be
able to provide a detailed, substantive briefing until late April/early
May." My time is limited so I'll put the rest in for the record. Mr
George, I could go on as late as May 19th -- I'm sorry, May 9th -- where
the Committee staff then sent on the 8th, "Can we go ahead and schedule
a briefing?" May 9th [reply], "I'll get back to you." And it goes on.
Mr. George, this Committee and the entire Congress has existing laws.
Yesterday, I spoke before all of your fellow IGs. Under existing law,
you have a peer-level report of substantial misconduct or problems
including waste, fraud and abuse. The act describes your establishment
-- meaning in this case, the IRS -- and Congress in the same sentence.
On August 3rd, I sent you a letter explaining the seven day rule,
explaining the statute as it has been written for decades. You have
responsibility to keep us continuously and -- according to statute --
equally informed. In this case it appears as though you certainly did
not. Would you agree with that?J. Russell George: Uh, no, actually.Chair Darrell Issa: Okay, so when you conducted, day-after-day-after
day, with Mr. Schulman's subordinate Ms. Paz, one after another
interviews in which she's in the room, she's listening to all of these.
You're doing that. You know, at some time, and I'm going to close with
just a question, on what day did you know -- over this year period --
did you know personally that the IRS had abused Americans in the process
of approval? What was that day? What was the a-ha moment? And didn't
you have an obligation to report that to Congress at that time?J. Russell George: Mr. Chairman, I have a detailed timeline which
goes almost from month to month as to the interactions that we had with
your staff and then subsequently with the [IRS] commissioner as well as
with officials at the Dept of the Treasury. And I would appreciate the
opportunity to give you a sampling of that.Chair Darrell Issa: We're going to accept that. And I just want to
close and then I'll let you take as much time as you need. If your
timeline essentially says you kept us informed so that we knew that in
fact there was a pattern and could speak to Ways and Means to find out
that 100s of organizations still languished not being approved after
"the abusive behavior began," they still didn't get their answer in a
timely fashion. And if you're saying that you informed Mr. Wolin so
that he would understand what is going on or others at Treasury and you
informed us and Mr. Shulman, here's my problem. Mr. Shulman has already
said under oath, he didn't know. Mr Wolin has already said under oath
they didn't know. And although I'm not under oath, I have reviewed my
Committee staff documents, and of course it's a bipartisan relationship,
we certainly did not have the information in any way, shape or form
that could be understood so that Congressional action could occur until
practically today.J. Russell George: Mr. Chairman, there are established procedures
for conducting an audit and once again this is an audit. And to ensure
fairness and to ensure that we are completely accurate in the
information that we convey to Congress, we will not report information
until the IRS has had an opportunity to take a look at it to ensure that
we're not misstating facts --Chair Darrell Issa: Mr. George, that is not the statute. That is not the statute.J. Russell George: But it would be incorrect for us to give you
partial information which may not be accurate. It would be
counterproductive, sir, if we were to do that.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings called out Shulman for not coming back to
Congress after he was informed there was a problem and correcting his
earlier pronouncement to the Committee that no targeting was taking
place, "It seems to me that after saying to the Congress 'absolutely no
targeting,' it seems to me that you would come back even if it was a
phone call or a letter or something. Common sense." Shulman repeated
that he felt he was doing the right thing by being silent.Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: Well I'm sorry, that's simply not
good enough. It's simply not good enough, Mr. Shulman. The IRS
conducting an internal investigation of its own. Not the IG
investigation, but there own investigation. You personally knew there
was a target list. You knew it said "Tea Party" on it. You put new
processes in place and you took personnel actions. You reassigned at
least one individual back in 2012. Come on, Mr. Shulman. Help us help
the taxpayers. Am I missing something? Douglas Shulman: So as I --Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: Did you have an investigation? Was there an internal investigation? Douglas Shulman: I never understood that word of internal investigation.Ranking Member Elijah Cumings: Did you reassign at least one person back in 2012?Douglas Shulman: Not that I was aware of.Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: You don't -- You don't know that? Douglas Shulman: To the best of my knowledge, I was not involved in
the reassignment of people in the uh determinations unit. I have no
recollection of that.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: So when you learned about the
targeting, apparently, you made some kind of inquiry because you said
you found out that it had been resolved. Who did you go to and who told
you that it had been resolved? And what did they say the resolution
was? You were the head of the IRS.Douglas Shulman: I was the head of the IRS --

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings: And you've got Congress people that
were upset about targeting. They had been asking questions. You had
come [before the Committee] and said there was "absolutely no
targeting." And so help me with this. Douglas Shulman: First of all, let me express this is a very serious matter and I fully recognize that.

Great. It only took Shulman 80 minutes into the hearing to 'express'
that. He had a lengthy opening statement that missed that point.

With few exceptions, the Democrats only focused on Shulman. There are
two reasons for that. The secondary reason is that it's because Shulman
was a Bully Boy Bush appointee. The primary reason is that Fridays
Ways and Means House Committee hearing resorted in blistering comments
to Democrats on the Committee. From their supporters in their
districts. One member told me he couldn't believe that an elderly woman
who block walks and phone banks for him every two years when he's up
for election felt he was letting the IRS off. The IRS, because it
collects money from people and few are thrilled to fork over money, has a
built-in hostility factor with voters. Fridays meeting struck many
Democratic voters as if their elected officials were defending the IRS
after it was caught in wrong doing. They didn't do it astro-turf wise.
They did it by contacting the local offices in their districts and
making it clear to people who knew them from previous campaign work just
how offended they were. It doesn't poll well with independents,
sticking up for the IRS in this case, but four Dems on House Ways and
Means and on Oversight told me that the complaints were coming from the
core of their volunteer staff for re-election campaigns. These are
strong supporters and their offense is why you saw more action on the
part of the Dems this hearing.

Focusing on Shulman allowed them to land blows on the IRS that they need
to going into the re-election campaign. My question for Oversight was
if this were a DoD scandal and it was 2010, would they really think
going after Robert Gates and terming him a Bully Boy Bush appointee
would have made a difference? Because while some will grab "Bush
appointee" and wrap themselves in it like a safety blanket, the reality
is that Shulman could have been asked for his resignation in 2009, in
2010, in 2011 . . .

And while Lois Lerner refused to testify, pleading the Fifth, it should be noted that everyone
assumes that had Congress dropped rounds of questioning and instead offered a round of charades,
she would have really shined.

Kat will cover the hearing at her site tonight, Wally will cover it at Rebecca's site, Ava will cover US House Rep Stephen Lynch in the hearing at Trina's site (Lynch was one of the strongest members in the hearing).

On the topic of Congress, Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the
Senate Budge Comittee and she and Senator Maria Cantwell and US House
Rep Cathy McMorris Rogers are expressing disappointment over a decision
announced today:

For Immediate Release

Murray:
(202) 224-2834

Cantwell: (202)
224-8277

McMorris Rodgers: (509)
353-2374

MAY 22,
2013

Murray, Cantwell, McMorris Rodgers Disappointed By Air
Force Decision on KC-46A Tanker Program

WASHINGTON, DC —
Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and U.S.
Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) expressed their disappointment with
the Air Force’s decision to base the KC-46A tanker program atMcConnell Air Force Base in Kansas, despite the
strong bid from Fairchild Air Force Base in Eastern Washington.

“Today’s
decision by the Air Force is extremely disappointing, and seems to ignore the
obvious advantages Fairchild has to support the military’s regional and global
priorities and major flight programs like the KC-46A,” said Senator Murray.“While
pressing the top levels of the Pentagon for answers on today’s decisions, I will
continue to work with the full delegation for future investments in Fairchild,
including new tankers in the next rounds of basing decisions.”

"The
Secretary of the Air Force stated today that Fairchild will be a strong
contender for future tanker basing decisions,”said Senator Cantwell. “While today’s
preliminary tanker decision is disappointing, I will work with the Washington
delegation and local leaders to bring new tankers to Fairchild and ensure it
remains a vital asset for our nation's tanker program. With Fairchild's 50-year
history as a vital resource in the U.S. tanker refueling program, Spokane
remains a strong choice for locating future refueling tankers.”

“This is not a
loss. The Air Force has plans to procure 179 KC-46A refueling tankers. It is
important to remember that this is only the first installment of 36 tankers.
While it was our hope that Fairchild would be the preferred base to host the
next-generation refueling tankers, today’s announcement continues to bolster
Fairchild’s vibrant mission. In the next few years, the Air Force will continue
to base KC-46A refueling tankers at additional installations,”
said Rep. McMorris
Rodgers. “Moving forward, Fairchild
will compete very well and is in an excellent position to receive them. “For over a decade, our community has worked together to
let the Air Force know we would welcome the tankers at Fairchild. Today’s
decision demonstrates that our hard work was appreciated by the Air Force. I
want to thank our community leaders – civilian and military; public sector and
private sector; and by officials in both parties – for their commitment and teamwork. We have a lot to be
proud of, and our efforts for Fairchild will continue.”

In December 2011,
May 2012, and most recently in April 2013, Murray, Cantwell, and McMorris
Rodgers led Washington state delegation letters to U.S. Air Force Secretary
Michael Donley, highlighting the unique benefits that Fairchild offers the Air
Force and the KC-46A tanker program, specifically. Fairchild, which is ideally
situated to support the Department of Defense’s broad-based focus on the
Asia-Pacific region, is already home to the Active Duty 92nd Air Refueling Wing
and the Washington Air National Guard's 141st Air Refueling Wing, which both fly
the KC-135 aerial refueling tankers, and has continually modernized its
facilities through more than $400 million in military construction
investments.

The Washington
state delegation strongly advocated for Fairchild’s bid for the tanker program
and has helped direct significant federal investments to the base. Those
investments have included:

·
$11 million to fund a new
Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Force Support
Complex

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

TODAY, IRS OFFICIAL LOIS LERNER PLANS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS AND PLEAD THE FIFTH.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, A VERY NERVOUS LERNER INVITED THESE REPORTERS INTO HER HOME AND EXPLAINED, "I'M REALLY AFRAID OF WHAT THEY MIGHT ASK ME. LIKE AM I COMMUNIST? DID I EVER ATTEND A PTA MEETING? DO I DO TIME-SHARES? I AIN'T GOING DOWN LIKE THAT. NO, SIREE, BOB. MISS LOIS LERNER IS NOBODY'S FOOL."

APPARENTLY FEELING BETTER TO GET IT ALL OF HER CHEST, LERNER PUT ON HER TIN FOIL HAT, SMILED AND HEADED OFF TO SEE CONGRESS.

Through yesterday, Iraq Body Countcounts 564 violent deaths so far this month and they have 11 more days in the month to count. Including today when Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports
a Tarmiya suicide bomber claimed the lives of 3 Iraqi soldiers (seven
more injured), a Tuk Hurmato car bombing which claimed 5 lives
(forty-three more injured), and 3 Kirkuk roadside bombings which claimed
6 lives (twenty-five more injured). Mustafa Mahmoud, Isabel Coles and Alistair Lyon (Reuters) quote
Kirkuk survivor Mahmoud Jumaa stating, "I heard the explosions, but
never thought this place would be targeted since these animals have
nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with sect, nothing to do with
ethnicity or religion." Alsumaria notes that in Ramadi a leader of the ongoing demonstrations died from a car bombing. NINA identifies
him as Sheikh Malik al-Dulaimi and adds that he," along with other
capable tribal chiefs of Anbar, took care of supplying tents, food and
other requirements to the protestors in Ramadi." Nouri issued no
statement demanding that the killers responsible for Sheikh Malik
al-Dulaimi be brought to justice. Nouri issued no statement condemning
the killing of al-Dulaimi. Kareem Raheem (Reuters) counts over 40 dead from violence today.

First to blame for the increasing bloodshed, which killed at least 86
on Monday alone and 352 so far this month, is Iraq's prime minister,
Nouri Al Maliki."Mr Al Maliki failed to contain the rising
sectarian tensions in the early stages, resorting instead to security
solutions and rejecting dialogue with his opponents," the editorial
noted.Mr Al Maliki ignored the demands of residents in Anbar province, where the largest sit-ins and protests have been taking place.A
Shia Muslim, Mr Al Maliki is accused by Sunnis of being biased towards
his sect in terms of official posts. The bomb and gun attacks on Monday
targeted mainly Shia areas, including in the capital Baghdad.In a
statement reported yesterday, the Iraqi premier said: "I assure the
Iraqi people that the [the militants] will not be able to bring us back
to sectarian conflict," pledging an overhaul at the high and middle
levels of his security apparatus following its failure to stop the
attacks.A statement like this shows how Mr Al Maliki is still "in
denial", since the crisis is about political failure, rather than
security flops, Al Quds Al Arabi argued.

AFP makes
much of Nouri's 'big shake up in security command' yet all they can
list is that a someone over the security in the city of Baghdad lost his
post. Woah! What a shake up. All Iraq News notes that's the only position changed (Lt Gen Abdul Amir Kamel will replace Lt Gen Ahmed Hashim).

Meanwhile Abbas al-Mahmadawi flaunts ignorance. He's the Secretary
General of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coalition. (At one point, this was a
term for Sahwa aka Sons of Iraq.) According to Press TV,
"Britain and the US are responsible for the growing number of bombings
in Iraq because of their sales of fake bomb detects to the country,
Secretary Genera of Iraq's Abna Al Iraq coaltion Abbas Al Mahmadawi
says." England did not sell the 'magic' wands. A British citizen did
and the UK put him on trial, convicted him and sentenced him.

The US government did not sale any magic wands and no US citizen was in
charge of that company. I believe it was also the US press that first
raised objections about the wands.
At the start of November 2009, Rod Nordland (New York Times) reported
on these 'bomb detectors' in use in Iraq: "The small hand-held wand, with a
telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints
in Iraq. But the device works 'on the same principle as a Ouija board'
-- the power of suggestion -- said a retired United States Air Force
officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more
than an explosive divining rod."

It's amazing that Abbas is too cowardly to blame Nouri al-Maliki. From yesterday's snapshot:So in 2010, it was known that the magic wands were not working? No. It was known before that. May 11th, Alsumaria reported that new documents from the Ministry of Interior (reproduced
with the article) demonstrate that a Ministry committee said the wands
were not working and, in 2009, recommended that they not be purchased
anymore. There were calls for Nouri to appear before Parliament to
answer questions. He needs to. But he has refused all calls so far --
despite the Constitution on this issue. He continues to violate and
ignore the Constitution. Kitabat also coverd the revelations about the 2009 recommendation at length here. May 12th, Alsumaria reported Parliament's
Integrity Committee held a hearing to determine the details surrounding
the purchase of these wands and Committee Chair Bahaa al-Araji states that the
Integrity Commission appeared before the Committee and offered names of
"top officials" involved. Mohammad Sabah (Al Mada) reported
that even after Nouri was personally warned by a British commander
"Colonel Powell" that the devices did not work, an order was still place
and Al Mada reproduced that order -- it came from Nouri's office. Last Thursday, National Iraqi News Agency reports
that Iraqiya MP Nada al-Jubouri is calling for an emergency session of
Parliament to address yesterday's bombings, "These repeated security
breaches came as a result of the lack of a way to detect car bombs,
which claim the lives of people, in addition to the weakness of the
intelligence information." May 3rd, Ammar Karim (AFP) reported
that despite the wands being found not to work, despite the conviction
and sentencing of their seller and maker in a British court, the wands
were still being used in Baghdad.

Nouri was told they didn't work and he ordered them anyway. They're still being used -- and they don't work.

Wait, it gets better.

Al Mada reports
that Nouri held a press conference today and announced that the magic
wands work. Back when Karim reported they were being used, I noted
Nouri's plan to sue the maker just lost standing. Any chance that it
still had legal standing is now gone. Nouri stood up and Baghdad and
declared that the rip-off devices work. That's money Iraq will now
never get back. It doesn't matter that they don't work. Ignoring years
of warnings, Nouri continues to use them. It no longer matters, he's
lost standing to sue.

What an idiot. Dar Addustour has him insisting
that these 'magic' wands can detect bombs 20 to 40% of the time. No,
they can't. This was established in a court of law. What an idiot. Robert Booth (Guardian) reported May 2nd:McCormick sold 7,000 fake bomb detectors based on useless golf ball
finders to the Iraqi government and other international agencies for
prices ranging from £1,600 per unit to £19,000.They cost McCormick less than $50 (£32) and police believe sales to Iraq alone were worth more than £55m, buying McCormick a mansion in Bath, holiday homes abroad and a yacht.Judge
Richard Hone told McCormick: "Your fraudulent conduct in selling so
many useless devices for simply enormous profit promoted a false sense
of security and in all probability materially contributed to causing
death and injury to innocent individuals."

Get it? They didn't work. They were never going to work. They had
nothing to do with bombs but were invented to be golf ball finders and
were useless at even that.

Why didn't Nouri appear before Parliament today? Because he has blood
on his hands and he knows it. Instead of getting honest, he's now
insisting that the magic wands work.

Christiane Amanpour (Amanpour, CNN) spoke
with Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari about the situation in Iraq
and he stated, "The government has its own failing. I'm not here to
give you a rosy picture or to portray unrealistic picture. But the
country is not crashing."

Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujafi also held a press conference. All Iraq News reports that he called out Nouri for ordering State of Law MPs not to attend today's emergency session. He calls it a violation of the Constitution. National Iraqi News Agency notes
that al-Nujaifi "added that there is no personal problem between him
and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, confirming that the problem lies in
the lack of respect from al-Maliki to the legislative authority." Alsumaria reports
State of Law is screaming for al-Nujaifi to resign. (State of Law is
Nouri's political slate. In the 2010 elections, Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya
beat State of Law.) Alsumaria notes
cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr has weighed in but their
brief report doesn't make clear on whose side. He apologizes to the
Iraqi people for what is happening and blames government officials --
Iraqiya and State of Law both? Nouri for calling for a boycott of the
emergency session? It's not clear.

Following yesterday's violence in Basra and Baghdad, the Iraq Times reports
professors and teachers belonging to the National Alliance coalition
are asking that Nouri be dismissed as prime minister as a result of the
continued violence and unstable security. Moqtada's bloc is part of the
Shi'ite National Alliance (as is Nouri's State of Law). The report
notes an MP from Moqtada's bloc said Nouri needs to resign or appear
before Parliament. He's been denounced for the way he's managed Iraqi
security. As Sheikh (Dar Addustour) has a column
on the whole matter that strives for balance and notes that the
Parliament was directly elected by the people (not true of the prime
minister) and that Nouri should show respect for democracy and for the
state institutions.

In the US, The War on the First Amendment continues. Last Monday
brought the shocking news that the US Justice Dept had secretly seized
two months of phone records from the historic, 167-year-old news
organization the Associated Press. This was over a 'leak' supposedly.
But the Justice Dept knew of the 2012 report over a week before it was
published. The Justice Dept also felt that they would ignore laws
requiring them to at first work with the AP and resort to secret seizure
only after that. Instead, they moved to secret seziure and when the
records were seized no one still knows. (It could have been 45 days
prior to them notifying the AP. But it could have been as much as 90
days.) No one knows. This is not a free society, this is not an open
society. This is an offense and it's outrageous.

Yesterday, another attack in The War on the First Amendment is revealed. Ann E. Marimow (Washington Post) breaks the news
of the Justice Dept targeting Fox News' James Rosen over press reports
he filed on North Korea. They not only seized his phone records, they
also sezied his personal e-mails and "used security badge access records
to track the reporter's comings and goings from the State Department."
First Amendment attorney Charles Tobin tells the Post, "Search warrants
like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important
information to the public. That's a very dangerous road to go down." CNN explains, "The case centered on the leak of intelligence about North Korea in 2009,
in which analysts predicted the possibility of a nuclear test if the
U.S. enacted further sanctions on the regime. Fox News reported on that
analysis on June 11, 2009." Free Speech Radio News reports it this way:

Dorian Merina: More
information has surfaced on the Department of Justice's surveillance of
journalists. The Washington Post reports that the DOJ spied on Fox News
DC correspondent James Rosen after he wrote an article in 2009 about
North Korea's nuclear program. Not only did investigators review his
phone records, they also tracked his security badge to find out when he
visited the State Department and they got a search warrant allowing them
to read his personal Gmail correspondence. The warrant identifies Rosen
as a reporter, but also alleges that as a recipient of leaked
information he is a co-conspirator, subject to charges that are
punishable by up to 10 years in prison. So far, no formal charges
against Rosen have been filed.

The revelation that the DOJ would classify a journalist as an
un-indicted co-conspirator under the 1917 Espionage Act is “even a
bigger deal” than the department’s seizure of Associated Press phone
records, said Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and
Technology Project."A line has been crossed that has always been a very critical
bulwark,” he said. “That’s the line between government leakers and media
publishers." No journalist has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage
Act, what has traditionally "only been used against those who gave or
sold secrets to the enemy."

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued
the following statement after a report was released claiming that the
Obama Administration targeted a FOX News reporter during a leak
investigation:"I am very concerned by reports the Obama Administration targeted a
FOX News reporter for possible criminal prosecution for doing what
appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment.
The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same
sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions
about the Administration’s handling of Benghazi. National security leaks
are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal
prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect
that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the
investigations focus on the leakers within the government – not on media
organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve a vital
function in our democracy. We must insist that federal agents not use
legitimate investigations as an excuse to harass journalists they deem
unfriendly to the President or the Administration. We shouldn’t even
have to ask if our government would do such a thing, but unfortunately
as the unfolding IRS scandal shows, this White House has created a
culture where we do have to explicitly make these kinds of requests."

Digging around the story, Garance Franke-Ruta (The Atlantic) notes Rosen but also wonders who else in the press has the government gone after? She writes, "In an August 2010 report
on the indictment of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim on charges of 'disclosing
national defense information in June 2009 to a national news
organization, believed to be Fox News,' several other reporters were
mentioned in relation to the DoJ leak investigations, in addition to
Rosen." She notes Siobhan Gorman (Wall St. Journal) and Richard Silverstein (Tikun Olam) were two others mentioned. Philip Klein (Washington Examiner) wonders if it goes beyond this case and AP:Last year, Bloomberg reported
that Attorney General Eric Holder “has prosecuted more government
officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than
all his predecessors combined, including law-and-order Republicans John
Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.” The administration has also
received a failing grade for its ignoring of Freedom of Information Act requests.Taken together, all such actions have a toll. They mean that federal
officials are less likely to blow the whistle on government wrongdoing
and that journalists are less likely to obtain damning information that
they can pass along to the public. The suggestion by the DOJ that Rosen
broke the law, if followed to its logical conclusion, would mean the end
of investigative journalism in America.

Why did Corn have to perform a tutorial? Because of the nonsense
pushback of "Don't Say Nothing Bad About My Baby." Writing about the
scandal of targeting the AP, Craig Aaron (The Progressive) noted last week:The probe appears to be unprecedented in its scale and scope. But as Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation notes:
“In five years, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers
under the Espionage Act than all other administrations combined, and
virtually all these prosecutions have engulfed journalists one way or
another.”The initial reaction of the Obama administration was evasion
from Attorney General Eric Holder and squirming by White House
Spokesman Jay Carney -- who became flustered when the briefing-room
lapdogs started to snarl.Pro-Obama messengers
were instructed to act concerned the reporters might have tipped off
the terrorists and -- if that didn’t work -- to shout “Valerie Plame” a
lot. But that mostly served as a reminder of how much the most
transparent administration ever™ was outdoing another famous Dick: Dick
Cheney.

As many have noted, you can see the pushback nonsense at CJR again
today. But who takes CJR seriously anymore? Rhonda Roland Shearer's
expose "CJR Reporter Lying, Exploiting a Source? What's happening at Columbia Journalism Review?"
revealed CJR doesn't check their facts, they humiliate a private
citizen and won't apologize or correct their errors, they allow a
'reporter' to do a stunt to make a documentary and they treat it as
news, they defend their 'reporter' lying to newspaper reporters . . .
The list never ends.

Meanwhile, journalists around the country are asking, "What the heck is going on?"It should be the question on every concerned citizen's mind. It
breaks my heart that we need this reminder: A thriving — and free —
press is often the only check on representative government. Already,
potential government whistle-blowers have lost their nerve and never
will pick up that phone.

It's a point New York Times investigative reporter Mark Mazzetti makes to Greg Sargent (Washington Post) today, "There’s no question that this has a chilling effect. People who have talked in the past are less willing to talk now.
Everyone is worried about communication and how to communicate, and
[asking if there] is there any method of communication that is not being
monitored. It’s got people on both sides -- the reporter and source side -- pretty concerned." Jordy Yager and Mike Lillis (The Hill) point out, "Obama himself has made no apologies for the Justice’s sweep of AP phone records."

He issued no apologies for that. But late Friday, he did issue the following:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

May 17, 2013

Notice -- Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Stabilization of Iraq

NOTICE

- - - - - - -

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
WITH RESPECT TO THE STABILIZATION OF IRAQ

On May 22, 2003, by Executive Order 13303, the President declared a
national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the
United States posed by obstacles to the continued reconstruction of
Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the
country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic
institutions in Iraq.

The obstacles to the continued reconstruction of Iraq, the
restoration and maintenance of peace and security in the country, and
the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions
in Iraq continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security and foreign policy of the United States. For this
reason, the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303, as
modified in scope and relied upon for additional steps taken in
Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, Executive Order 13350 of July
29, 2004, Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004, and Executive
Order 13438 of July 17, 2007, must continue in effect beyond May 22,
2013. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the
national emergency with respect to the stabilization of Iraq declared in
Executive Order 13303.This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 17, 2013.

Why is a US president issuing declarations -- national emergency ones --
about the supposed 'free' Iraq? Oh, that's right. It's not really
free of the US.